The more desirable option

[Hawthorne2k]

McDonald v. Chicago is about to be decided in the next few weeks, and it's got me thinking about what nation-wide gun laws should look like.

So, the question is, which is preferable: Alaska-style carry with permit-less CCW within each state and patchwork reciprocity across state lines, or nation-wide CCW reciprocity with an easy-to-get permit needed for in-state carry?

Yes, I know, "no laws" would be best, but let's assume that's not an option yet and we need to take the next logical step in that direction. I kinda lean towards Alaska-style carry and no nation-wide reciprocity, myself. Keeps the Federal government out of things.

 

[William Lee]

I've been following this one with interest in my first year of law school. I'm excited for a Scalia authored opinion along the lines of D.C. v. Heller (the one overturning the DC handgun ban which was inherently ridiculous). The issue in this case is not as much strictly the second amendment, but a question of whether or not to incorporate the second amendment into the fourteenth amendment's due-process clause which would require all states to honor the right to keep and bear arms in some sort of cohesive way. The politics of exactly how the law will work if the case goes in our favor will likely be decided by congress rather than the judicial system. Keep those fingers crossed.

 

[Manco]

To me the broader the scope of our rights, the better. Government power, on the other hand, should be granted in the reverse direction.

I've been following this one with interest in my first year of law school. I'm excited for a Scalia authored opinion along the lines of D.C. v. Heller (the one overturning the DC handgun ban which was inherently ridiculous). The issue in this case is not as much strictly the second amendment, but a question of whether or not to incorporate the second amendment into the fourteenth amendment's due-process clause which would require all states to honor the right to keep and bear arms in some sort of cohesive way.

The big stumbling block I see here (potentially) is that while Justice Scalia is a big supporter of individual rights, which obviously helped our cause in the Heller ruling, he is NOT a supporter of incorporation in general. That said, on the bright side he seems to be more against selective incorporation than anything else, so he may decide that adding another piece of the Bill of Rights to the Supreme Court's now well-established history of incorporation would be a good thing overall. As a result, I'm still cautiously optimistic that we will get a favorable ruling, but I don't think it's a sure bet at all.

 

[CoRoMo]

Alaska-style carry with permit-less CCW within each state and patchwork reciprocity across state lines, or nation-wide CCW reciprocity with an easy-to-get permit needed for in-state carry?

From this statement, I'm surprised that you say you lean toward the Alaska model. This statement is completely slanted the other way. It creates the notion that an Alaska model, in each state, would cause a "patchwork of reciprocity", but if each state were to allow law abiding gun owners to carry without a permit, there would be no patchwork, all states would reciprocate. Residency wouldn't matter, only 'law abiding status'.

Your statement also makes the assumption that a national reciprocity bill would somehow use an "easy-to-get permit". I'm certain the opposite would be true. Get the feds involved and the whole country might not be 'shall issue', probably 'may issue' via the most complex, strictest, and most expensive platform that would be agreed upon.

Anyway, I'll vote for the Alaska style of concealed carry, across state lines, from sea to sea. But I'm curious to hear from those who voted for the feds to have absolute control.

 

[Hawthorne2k]

From this statement, I'm surprised that you say you lean toward the Alaska model.

I'm assuming that the standard for getting a nationwide CCW permit would be similar to what we have currently in Arizona: One day of class time, fingerprinting, and a easy-to-pass shooting test, (something that is going away in a month or so), and the reciprocity for Alaska-style carry permits would be similar to what we have now, with some states not recognizing out of state permits. Both situations would be an extension of the current legal situation, just in different directions.

 

[wishin]

Alaskan CCW in all states would make reciprocity moot, I would think. Although the idiots that came up with our carry in bars law would probably be against country wide reciprocity in such a case.

 

[CoRoMo]

...assuming that the standard for getting a nationwide CCW permit would be similar to what we have currently in Arizona...

And I'd assume that it would look more like the model of New Jersey or the state of New York. I don't know if you've noticed, but the feds have not been too impressed with your state. I don't want to get into that, but if we were to allow the feds to hold our lead rope, we would be foolish to expect America to go the way of Arizona. We could only hope, but don't count on it. Like wishin says, the Alaska model would make reciprocity moot.

I still hear crickets from those who voted that Pelosi should determine who gets a permit.

 

[everallm]

Quick FYI, the SC did not release McDonald today and Monday is the last day of the current term so looks like Monday is the day......

 

[bskillet]

I'm a fan of nationwide reciprocity with all 50 states having shall-issue permits. The reason for this is that it means individuals will be subject to background checks before carrying. While I know this may not be popular here, and it won't actually keep criminals from carrying illegally, it will allow prosecutors an extra charge to throw at a criminal to extend jail sentences.

Thinking is like this: Background check means criminals can't get a CCW. Criminals therefore carry outlaw. Criminals commit crimes. Criminals get charged with initial crime AND unlawful carry. In states with 3 strikes laws, that may mean 2 strikes already.

 

[esquare]

The federal government has no authority to restrict the keeping or bearing of arms - that's what the constitution says. Furthermore, the federal government does have the authority and responsibility to protect our individual, inalienable rights, especially the 2A rights, against state and local governments that would like to infringe on them. This is the check and balance that is crucial to having a republic. (States keep feds in check - feds keep states in check). So, logically, alaska carry, vermont carry, or arizona carry (aka, constitutional carry) is really the only true way to go, and I believe that this is where most, if not all, states will go in the next 20 years. The only thing I can see the feds having authority to do would be to repeal the crazy gun control laws on their books from this last century.

 

[esquare]

I'm a fan of nationwide reciprocity with all 50 states having shall-issue permits. The reason for this is that it means individuals will be subject to background checks before carrying. While I know this may not be popular here, and it won't actually keep criminals from carrying illegally, it will allow prosecutors an extra charge to throw at a criminal to extend jail sentences.

The problem with this is that it restricts normal, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves when they most need it. The classic example is of a person that gets threatened, stocked, or violently abused. They should have the right to go right to a gun store, pick up a handgun, and carry it with them immediately. Why disarm someone for 90+ days while they wait. If they can legally purchase a gun, they should be legally able to carry it at will.

The argument about adding another charge is what is so problematic with the current gun laws. Most of them were added with this reasoning, but they serve as traps for law abiding citizens as well. If someone commits a violent crime with a gun, why can't we just prosecute and sentence them for that crime? We shouldn't need to trump up more charges, especially at the expense of infringing on everyone else's rights.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I would not want the Federal government involved in this in any manner.

States should be able to decide for themselves, based hopefully on the outcome of MacDonald, but I'm firmly against some new Federal agency being involved.

The comparison to drivers license doesn't really work since traffic laws are pretty much the same in all 50 states, where the self defense laws vary drastically.

 

[General Geoff]

I'm a fan of nationwide reciprocity with all 50 states having shall-issue permits. The reason for this is that it means individuals will be subject to background checks before carrying. While I know this may not be popular here, and it won't actually keep criminals from carrying illegally, it will allow prosecutors an extra charge to throw at a criminal to extend jail sentences.

Thinking is like this: Background check means criminals can't get a CCW. Criminals therefore carry outlaw. Criminals commit crimes. Criminals get charged with initial crime AND unlawful carry. In states with 3 strikes laws, that may mean 2 strikes already.

Current law already prohibits felons from possessing/carrying firearms. Why would you want to make law abiding citizens jump through hoops, when it's going to be illegal for felons to carry, one way or the other?

(which, btw, I do not support ex-cons being stripped of their RKBA. If they've done the time, then all their rights should be restored.)

 

[bskillet]

Current law already prohibits felons from possessing/carrying firearms. Why would you want to make law abiding citizens jump through hoops, when it's going to be illegal for felons to carry, one way or the other?

The problem with this is that it restricts normal, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves when they most need it. The classic example is of a person that gets threatened, stocked, or violently abused. They should have the right to go right to a gun store, pick up a handgun, and carry it with them immediately. Why disarm someone for 90+ days while they wait. If they can legally purchase a gun, they should be legally able to carry it at will.

I was thinking about this while cleaning my gutters, and I have to say I see your points. This does make sense.

(which, btw, I do not support ex-cons being stripped of their RKBA. If they've done the time, then all their rights should be restored.)

The problem with this is that for violent crime, the recidivism rate is so high that one can reliably say "once a violent criminal, always a violent criminal." For goodness sakes, many gangs are quite literally run out of our prisons.

 

[CoRoMo]

...won't actually keep criminals from carrying illegally...

Correct.

...it will allow prosecutors an extra charge to throw at a criminal to extend jail sentences.

Which is completely pointless and rarely used. Prosecutors often offer the defendant a plea of guilty to the primary charge in exchange for all other charges dropped.

 

[shootistpd27]

Im sorry guys but if a criminal doesnt mind robbing, raping, beating, or killing; who in the hell would care about some little piece of plastic with their picture being on it so that they can LEGALLY carry a firearm. A crook is a crook. I think that everyone except crooks should be able to carry a firearm safely without a painful process. That way when the bad guy shows up with a gun, the good guy has got one too since he isnt waiting for some bureacratic hoop hopping session to be completed after some feds' lunch break. Alaskan all the way.

 

[CoRoMo]

...one can reliably say "once a violent criminal, always a violent criminal."

I might get on board with that. But... why ever let them out of prison then? If society deems them harmless enough to live next door to me, why can't they go rabbit hunting? Sorry for the drift. Geoff started it.

 

[General Geoff]

The problem with this is that for violent crime, the recidivism rate is so high that one can reliably say "once a violent criminal, always a violent criminal." For goodness sakes, many gangs are quite literally run out of our prisons.

A convicted violent criminal who cannot be trusted to live in a free society, should not be released in the first place.

 

[bskillet]

A convicted violent criminal who cannot be trusted to live in a free society, should not be released in the first place.

Agreed, but this means we would have to either expand the death penalty (which I am ALL for) or extend life sentences to broader classes of crime.

I might get on board with that. But... why ever let them out of prison then?

Because you have these people called liberals who do everything in their power to make sure criminals are never punished for their crimes, while law-abiding citizens are punished for self-defense.

 

[CoRoMo]

but this means we would have to...

And the problem with that is?

 

[General Geoff]

I disagree, bskillet.

The laws on the books are more than enough to keep truly violent offenders locked away for the rest of their natural lives. The reason they don't is because of lazy and/or overworked prosecutors. They're too busy trying to convict a bunch of harmless drug users for victimless crimes, to spend the time building a solid case against the real thugs. So they take the easy way out by offering plea bargains to the scum bags, and the rapists and muggers get a year for a crime which normally carries a 20 year sentence.

 

[CoRoMo]

Because you have these people...

Nope... I don't have any to speak of.

 

[Manco]

I think it's clear that gun control laws have failed to achieve every effect for which they were supposedly intended (ostensibly aimed toward criminals). Therefore there should be no gun control laws whatsoever.